Search

Introduction: In France, 40% of patients diagnosed with lung cancer are ≥70 years old, but these are under-represented in clinical trials. Using data from the French Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics (ESME) platform on Lung Cancer (LC), the objective is to provide an overview of the management and the prognosis of older patients with advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (AM-NSCLC) in a real-world context., Materials and Methods: From the ESME-LC database, we selected patients with AM-NSCLC (stage IIIB, IIIC, and IV), diagnosed between 2015 and 2019, and who received first-line systemic treatment. Demographics, tumour characteristics, and treatment received were described in patients ≥70, and compared to younger ones. Real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated using the multivariable Cox model., Results: Among 10,002 patients with AM-NSCLC, the median age was 64 years, with 2,754 (27.5%) aged ≥70. In comparison with patients <70, older patients were more often male, with worse performance status and more comorbidities, but they were less underweight and more often non-smokers. The proportion of EGFR mutated non-squamous NSCLC was higher in older patients (25.0% vs 12.8%, p < 0.001), particularly among smokers and former smokers (12.7% vs 7.3%, p < 0.001). Among patients ≥70, 76.6% received first-line chemotherapy (including 67.0% treated with a platinum-based doublet), 15.0% received only targeted therapy, and 11.0% received immunotherapy (alone or in combination). Median first-line rwPFS was 5.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI] = [4.8;5.4]) for patients ≥70 and 4.6 months (95%CI = [4.4;4.8]) for patients <70, but age was not associated with rwPFS in multivariable analysis. Median OS was 14.8 months (95%CI = [13.9;16.1]) for patients ≥70 and 16.7 months (95%CI = [15.9;17.5]) for patients <70, with a significant effect of age in multivariable analysis for patients treated with chemotherapy and/or with targeted therapy, but not for patients treated with immunotherapy (alone or in combination with chemotherapy)., Discussion: In this real-world cohort of patients with AM-NSCLC, age was not associated with first-line rwPFS regardless of treatment received, nor with OS for patients receiving immunotherapy. However, OS was significantly shorter for patients aged ≥70 treated with chemotherapy or with targeted therapy alone., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Mathilde Cabart reports non-financial support from Janssen, non-financial support from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. Loïc Mourey reports personal fees and non-financial support from Sanofi, personal fees from Astellas, personal fees and non-financial support from Janssen, personal fees and non-financial support from MSD, personal fees and non-financial support from BMS, personal fees and non-financial support from Ipsen, personal fees and non-financial support from Astra-Zeneca, personal fees and non-financial support from Pfizer, personal fees from Merck, outside the submitted work. David Pasquier has nothing to disclose. Sophie Schneider has nothing to disclose. Hervé Léna reports personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, personal fees from Astrazeneca, personal fees and non-financial support from MSD, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, personal fees and non-financial support from Takeda, personal fees from BMS, personal fees and non-financial support from Pfizer, non-financial support from Lilly, personal fees and non-financial support from Amgen, outside the submitted work. Nicolas Girard reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Daiichi, grants and personal fees from Roche, grants and personal fees from MSD, grants and personal fees from BMS, grants and personal fees from Pfizer, grants and personal fees from Janssen, grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, grants and personal fees from Takeda, grants and personal fees from Novartis, grants and personal fees from Sanofi, outside the submitted work; and Family Member employee of AstraZeneca. Christos Chouaid reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from GSK, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Sanofi Aventis, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from BMS, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from MSD, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Lilly, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Pfizer, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Takeda, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Bayer, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Janssen, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Viatris, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Chugai, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Pierre Fabre, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Amgen, outside the submitted work. Roland Schott reports personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, non-financial support from Takeda, personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, personal fees and non-financial support from Pfizer, non-financial support from IPSEN, personal fees and non-financial support from BMS, outside the submitted work. Sandrine Hiret reports non-financial support from Roche, non-financial support from Novartis, other from Sanofi, other from Astra Zeneca, other from Takeda, other from BMS, outside the submitted work. Didier Debieuvre has nothing to disclose. Xavier Quantin has nothing to disclose. Anne Madroszyk has nothing to disclose. Pascale Dubray-Longeras reports personal fees from MSD, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees and non-financial support from Takeda, non-financial support from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. Eric Pichon reports personal fees and non-financial support from Takeda, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from MSD, outside the submitted work. Anne Baranzelli has nothing to disclose. Grégoire Justeau has nothing to disclose. Maurice Pérol reports personal fees and non-financial support from Takeda, personal fees from Janssen, personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. Lise Bosquet has nothing to disclose. Bastien Cabarrou has nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was found to have antitumor activity and acceptable safety in previously treated metastatic NSCLC. We evaluated first-line lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus placebo plus pembrolizumab in metastatic NSCLC in the LEAP-007 study (NCT03829332/NCT04676412)., Methods: Patients with previously untreated stage IV NSCLC with programmed cell death-ligand 1 tumor proportion score of at least 1% without targetable EGFR/ROS1/ALK aberrations were randomized 1:1 to lenvatinib 20 mg or placebo once daily; all patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles. Primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 and overall survival (OS). We report results from a prespecified nonbinding futility analysis of OS performed at the fourth independent data and safety monitoring committee review (futility bound: one-sided p < 0.4960)., Results: A total of 623 patients were randomized. At median follow-up of 15.9 months, median (95% confidence interval [CI]) OS was 14.1 (11.4‒19.0) months in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group versus 16.4 (12.6‒20.6) months in the placebo plus pembrolizumab group (hazard ratio = 1.10 [95% CI: 0.87‒1.39], p = 0.79744 [futility criterion met]). Median (95% CI) PFS was 6.6 (6.1‒8.2) months versus 4.2 (4.1‒6.2) months, respectively (hazard ratio = 0.78 [95% CI: 0.64‒0.95]). Grade 3 to 5 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 57.9% of patients (179 of 309) versus 24.4% (76 of 312). Per data and safety monitoring committee recommendation, the study was unblinded and lenvatinib and placebo were discontinued., Conclusions: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab did not have a favorable benefit‒risk profile versus placebo plus pembrolizumab. Pembrolizumab monotherapy remains an approved treatment option in many regions for first-line metastatic NSCLC with programmed cell death-ligand 1 tumor proportion score of at least 1% without EGFR/ALK alterations., Competing Interests: Disclosure Dr. Yang reports receiving funding to institution for serving on advisory or consultancy services for Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Roche, Genentech, Takeda Oncology, Yuhan Pharmaceuticals, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Puma Technology, Gilead Sciences Inc., GlaxoSmithKline, BeiGene, Blueprint Medicines Corporation, Regeneron Pharmaceutical, and Taiho Pharmaceutical; receiving grant from Roche/Genentech; and having advisory or consultancy services from Ono Pharmaceuticals and Pfizer. Dr. Han reports receiving study funding to the institution from Eisai Inc., Nutley, New Jersey, and Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, New Jersey, to support study conduct. Dr. Jiménez reports receiving study funding to the institution from Eisai Inc., Nutley, New Jersey, and Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, New Jersey, to support study conduct. Dr. Lee reports receiving study funding to the institution from Eisai Inc., Nutley, New Jersey, and Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, New Jersey, to support study conduct. Dr. Koralewski reports receiving study funding to the institution from Eisai Inc., Nutley, New Jersey, and Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, New Jersey, to support study conduct. Dr. Karadurmus reports receiving study funding to the institution from Eisai Inc., Nutley, New Jersey, and Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, New Jersey, to support study conduct. Dr. Sugawara reports receiving grants or contracts to their institution from AnHeart, AstraZeneca, Chugai Pharma, MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim, Ono Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, Amgen, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Takeda, and Clinipace; payment or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Chugai Pharma, Ono Pharmaceutical, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Kyowa Kirin, Takeda, Nippon Kayaku, Merck Biopharma Japan, Amgen, AbbVie, Otsuka, Thermo Fisher Scientific, and Towa Pharmaceutical. Dr. Livi reports receiving study funding to the institution from Eisai Inc., Nutley, New Jersey, and Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, New Jersey, to support study conduct. Dr. Basappa reports receiving grants or contracts from Ipsen; receiving payment or honoraria from Bayer, Astellas, and Janssen; receiving support for attending meetings from Eisa, Ipsen, and Janssen; having participation on data safety monitoring board or advisory board with Eisai, Ipsen, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Janssen, AstraZeneca, EMD Serono, Bayer, Astellas, and MSD. Dr. Quantin reports receiving payment or honoraria to their institution from Sanofi, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca; receiving support for attending meetings from Janssen Cilag, Sanofi, and Pfizer; and having participation on data safety monitoring board or advisory board with Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Dudnik reports receiving study funding to the institution from Eisai Inc., Nutley, New Jersey, and Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, New Jersey, to support study conduct. Dr. Moran reports receiving support for present manuscript from MSD; grants or contracts from Abbott; consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb and MSD; honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Bayer; support for attending meetings from Tecnofarma, Roche, Pfizer, Bayer, and Janssen; and having participation on data safety monitoring board or advisory board with MSD. Dr. Mekhail reports receiving payment for speakers bureau from MSD. Drs. Okpara and Dutcus are employees of Eisai Ltd., Hatfield, UK. Drs. Zimmer, Samkari, and Bhagwati are employees of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, New Jersey, and own stock in Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, New Jersey. Dr. Csőszi reports receiving study funding to the institution from Eisai Inc., Nutley, New Jersey, and Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, New Jersey, to support study conduct., (Copyright © 2024 Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA, The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The RAS/MEK signaling pathway is essential in carcinogenesis and frequently altered in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), notably by KRAS mutations (KRASm) that affect 25%-30% of non-squamous NSCLC. This study aims to explore the impact of KRASm subtypes on disease phenotype and survival outcomes., Patients and Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of the French Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics database for advanced or metastatic lung cancer from 2011 to 2021. Patient demographics, histology, KRASm status, treatment strategies, and outcomes were assessed., Results: Of 10 177 assessable patients for KRAS status, 17.6% had KRAS p.G12C mutation, 22.6% had KRAS non-p.G12C mutation, and 59.8% were KRASwt. KRASm patients were more often smokers (96.3%) compared with KRASwt (85.8%). A higher proportion of programmed death-ligand 1 ≥50% was found for KRASm patients: 43.5% versus 38.0% (P < 0.01). KRASm correlated with poorer outcomes. First-line median progression-free survival was shorter in the KRASm than the KRASwt cohort: 4.0 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.7-4.3 months] versus 5.1 months (95% CI 4.8-5.3 months), P < 0.001. First-line overall survival was shorter for KRASm than KRASwt patients: 12.6 months (95% CI 11.6-13.6 months) versus 15.4 months (95% CI 14.6-16.2 months), P = 0.012. First-line chemoimmunotherapy offered better overall survival in KRAS p.G12C (48.8 months) compared with KRAS non-p.G12C (24.0 months) and KRASwt (22.5 months) patients. Second-line overall survival with immunotherapy was superior in the KRAS p.G12C subgroup: 12.6 months (95% CI 8.1-18.6 months) compared with 9.4 months (95% CI 8.0-11.4 months) for KRAS non-p.G12C and 9.6 months (8.4-11.0 months) for KRASwt patients., Conclusion: We highlighted distinct clinical profiles and survival outcomes according to KRASm subtypes. Notably KRAS p.G12C mutations may provide increased sensitivity to immunotherapy, suggesting potential therapeutic implications for sequencing or combination of therapies. Further research on the impact of emerging KRAS specific inhibitors are warranted in real-world cohorts., Competing Interests: Disclosure QDT received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, and Sanofi and meeting/travel support from Amgen and Sanofi. CC received grants or contracts, consulting fees, personal/institutional honoraria, and meeting/travel support from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda. TF received personal/institutional honoraria from Janssen, Lilly, and Roche. JRM received grants or contracts from MSD, received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker’s bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from AstraZeneca, Edimark, Janssen, MSD, Sanofi, Roche, and Takeda and meeting/travel support from Ose-Immunotherapeutics. MP received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, Novocure, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureau, manuscript writing or educational events from Anheart Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Takeda; payment for expert testimony from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Roche; support for attending meetings and/or travel from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda; and participated on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Pharmamar and Roche. CAV received consulting fees or meeting/travel support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, and Takeda; and participated in an advisory board for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi. GJ received meeting/travel support from Sanofi. SH received personal/institutional honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda; and meeting/travel support from Novartis and Sanofi. AS received consulting fees from Exafield and Guidepoint; honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, and MSD; meeting/travel support from Amgen and Roche; and is a board member of the SFFPO. EP received personal/institutional honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, and MSD; meeting/travel support from Takeda and Amgen; and participated in an advisory board for Takeda. NG declared research grants/support from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Gilead, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Merk Serono, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi, Sivan; consultative services for AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Gilead, Ipsen Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, MSD, Mirati, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Takeda; participation on a data safety monitoring board for Hoffmann-La Roche; and employment of a family member with AstraZeneca. PDR received meeting/travel support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Summit Therapeutics, Sanofi, and Takeda; and participated in an advisory board for Sanofi and Takeda. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Pleural mesothelioma usually presents at an advanced, incurable stage. Chemotherapy with platinum-pemetrexed is a standard treatment. We hypothesised that the addition of pembrolizumab to platinum-pemetrexed would improve overall survival in patients with pleural mesothelioma., Methods: We did this open-label, international, randomised phase 3 trial at 51 hospitals in Canada, Italy, and France. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, with previously untreated advanced pleural mesothelioma, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to intravenous chemotherapy (cisplatin [75 mg/m 2 ] or carboplatin [area under the concentration-time curve 5-6 mg/mL per min] with pemetrexed 500 mg/m 2 , every 3 weeks for up to 6 cycles), with or without intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks (up to 2 years). The primary endpoint was overall survival in all randomly assigned patients; safety was assessed in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study therapy. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02784171, and is closed to accrual., Findings: Between Jan 31, 2017, and Sept 4, 2020, 440 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to chemotherapy alone (n=218) or chemotherapy with pembrolizumab (n=222). 333 (76 %) of patients were male, 347 (79%) were White, and median age was 71 years (IQR 66-75). At final analysis (database lock Dec 15, 2022), with a median follow-up of 16·2 months (IQR 8·3-27·8), overall survival was significantly longer with pembrolizumab (median overall survival 17·3 months [95% CI 14·4-21·3] with pembrolizumab vs 16·1 months [13·1-18·2] with chemotherapy alone, hazard ratio for death 0·79; 95% CI 0·64-0·98, two-sided p=0·0324). 3-year overall survival rate was 25% (95% CI 20-33%) with pembrolizumab and 17% (13-24%) with chemotherapy alone. Adverse events related to study treatment of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 60 (27%) of 222 patients in the pembrolizumab group and 32 (15%) of 211 patients in the chemotherapy alone group. Hospital admissions for serious adverse events related to one or more study drugs were reported in 40 (18%) of 222 patients in the pembrolizumab group and 12 (6%) of 211 patients in the chemotherapy alone group. Grade 5 adverse events related to one or more drugs occurred in two patients on the pembrolizumab group and one patient in the chemotherapy alone group., Interpretation: In patients with advanced pleural mesothelioma, the addition of pembrolizumab to standard platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy was tolerable and resulted in a significant improvement in overall survival. This regimen is a new treatment option for previously untreated advanced pleural mesothelioma., Funding: The Canadian Cancer Society and Merck & Co., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MP has received grants for research to institution from AstraZeneca and Roche; payment for educational events from Astellas, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca; and received drugs for research from Roche and AstraZeneca. GLR received consulting fees from MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, Lilly, Amgen, Sanofi, Pfizer, Takeda, GSK, and Italfarmaco; received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, Lilly, Amgen, Sanofi, Pfizer, Takeda, GSK, and Italfarmaco; received support for attending meetings or travel from Roche, MSD, BMS, and Amgen; has participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, Lilly, Amgen, Sanofi, Pfizer, Takeda, GSK, and Italfarmaco; and has other financial or non-financial interests from MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, Amgen, Sanofi, Pfizer, Takeda, and GSK. YL holds stock or stock options from Merck. SL received consulting fees from Lilly, MSD, Sanofi, and AbbVie and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca. AS received grants or contracts (payments to institution) from MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Roche, and Amphera; received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, and Roche; received support for attending meetings or travel from AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, and Roche; and participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, and Roche. MF received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, BMS, and Takeda and received honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca, BMS, and Takeda. SAL has participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Sanofi and Bayer. JRG received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca and BMS. PB received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Merck and participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Mirati and AbbVie. NL has received editorial support from EMD Serono; received grants to institute (unrelated) from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Guardant Health, Inivata, Janssen, Merck/MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda; received honoraria or travel funding for CME lectures (unrelated) from AstraZeneca, Beigene, BMS, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, and Takeda; and participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Mirati, Helsinn, and Daichii Sankyo. LS has received grants or contracts to institution to support clinical trial from AstraZeneca, Merck, Bayer, Novartis, Repare, GSK, and Janssen and holds stock or stock options from AstraZeneca. DED has received research grants from CIHR, CancerCare Manitoba Foundation, and AstraZeneca; received research grants and salary awards from Manitoba Medical Services Foundation; received payment for educational events from Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, and BMS; served on an advisory board for Merck, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and Novartis; has acted in a leadership or fiduciary role in a board, society, committee or advocacy group, paid or unpaid for Lung Cancer Canada (Medical Advisory Committee), Canadian Association of Medical Oncologists (Chair, Fellowship Committee), and Canadian Cancer Trials Group (Chair, Small Cell Lung Cancer Working Group); and received equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts, or other services from AstraZeneca (Medical writing assistance on a small-cell lung cancer paper). QC has received grants to institution from Alkermes, Amgen, Apollomics, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bicycle, BMS, Conjupro, Decipher, Eli Lilly, Esperas, Exactis, GSK, iTEOS, Kelun, Merck, Mirati, Nuvalent, Ocellaris, Pfizer, Rvolution Medicines, Roche, SeaGen, Spectrum, and Treadwell; received consulting fees from Amgen, AnHeart, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GSK, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Merck and Co, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda; received payment for speaking or presentations from AstraZeneca; acted on an advisory board for Amgen, AnHeart, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GSK, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Merck and Co, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda; acted on a Data Safety Monitoring Committee for Merck and KGaA; and occupied a leadership or fiduciary role in a board, society, committee, or advocacy group, paid or unpaid for Lung Cancer Canada and Canadian Mesothelioma Foundation. CWL has served as a member of the Board of Directors for Canadian Mesothelioma Foundation. LG received grants or contracts to institution from BMS, MSD, Takeda, Pfizer, Roche, Amgen, Sanofi, Janssen, Lilly, and Novartis; received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from BMS, MSD, Takeda, Pfizer, Roche, Amgen, Sanofi, Janssen, Lilly, and Novartis; received support for attending meetings or travel from Pfizer, MSD, AstraZeneca, and Takeda; and participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Inhatarget Therapeutics. XQ received support for attending meetings or travel from Pfizer (ESMO 2022), Janssen (ASCO 2022), and Sanofi (ASCO 2023). VW received consulting fees from Amgen; received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Roche, and Sanofi; received support for attending meetings or travel from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, MSD, Roche, and Sanofi; and participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Amgen, AstraZeneca, and Ipsen. GZ received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Inventiva Pharma, Lilly, MSD Oncology, Pfizer, and Roche; acted in a consulting or advisory role for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Da Volterra, Inventiva Pharma, MSD Oncology, Pfizer, and Roche; received research funding from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda; and received travel, accommodations, and expenses from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Pfizer, and Roche. MLS received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from BMS and support for attending meetings or travel from Pfizer (ESMO 2022). AM received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Roche, AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Takeda, Boehringer, Sanofi, Lilly, Novartis, and Italfarmaco and participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, MSD, and Takeda. FG received consulting fees from Novocure, BMS, Novartis, PharmaMar, Pierre Fabre, and MSD; received payment for speaker bureau from Novocure; received support for attending meetings or travel from Novartis, MSD, BMS, PharmaMar, and Pierre Fabre. SD received payment for presentations from Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, and BMS and travel and accommodation support during meetings from Istituto Gentili, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, and BMS. GLC received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Novocure and BMS and participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Novocure. PAZ received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Merck Sharp and Dohme, Astellas, Janssen, Sanofi, Ipsen, Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol Meyer Squibb, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Roche, and Bayer; received support for attending meetings or travel from Merck Sharp and Dohme, Astellas, Janssen, Sanofi, Ipsen, Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol Meyer Squibb, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Roche, and Bayer; and participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Merck Sharp and Dohme, Astellas, Janssen, Sanofi, Ipsen, Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol Meyer Squibb, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Roche, and Bayer. MM received support for attending meetings or travel from Roche, Pfizer, and Novartis. FLC received consulting fees from Takeda, Amgen, Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Roche; received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Takeda, Amgen, Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Roche; and received support for attending meetings or travel from Takeda and Amgen. CG received consulting fees from Karyopharm, Menarini, and Roche; received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaux, manuscript writing, or educational events from MSD, BMS, Novartis, Amgen, Sanofi, Eli Lilly, GSK, Roche, Takeda, Boehringer, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer; and participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for MSD, BMS, Novartis, Amgen, Sanofi, Eli Lilly, GSK, Roche, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer. FP received partial funding to institution and experimental study drug from Pfizer; received financial support to institution from Roche, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Incyte, Tesaro/GSK, and Merck; and received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Bayer, Pierre Fabre, AstraZeneca, Incyte, Ipsen, Clovis, Astellas, Sanofi, Roche, and Pfizer. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: There is a great need for data based on clinical trials for the older population in order to improve treatment. Historically, the inclusion rate of older adults in clinical trials has been low, but the rate specific to lung cancer is unknown, as are the factors associated with enrolment., Materials and Methods: We used the national Epidemio-Strategy and Medical Economics Advanced or Metastatic Lung Cancer (AMLC) Data Platform, a multicentre real-life database. Inclusion criteria were patients with advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (AMNSCLC) aged 70 years or older, with at least one line of systemic treatment from 01 January 2015 to 31 December 2018. The primary objective was to evaluate the proportion of older adults enrolled in clinical trials. Secondary objectives were to identify factors associated with enrolment in clinical trials for older patients and to compare the overall survival of older adults included in trials versus those not included., Results: There were 3488 patients aged ≥70 years (median age at AMNSCLC 75 years). Among older patients, 234 (6.7%) were enrolled in a clinical trial in the first-line setting. Significant factors associated with enrolment in the multivariable analysis in older patients were: good Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status (PS 0) (p < 0.001), de novo versus recurrent presentation at diagnosis (p < 0.001), and non-central nervous system (CNS) metastases versus advanced setting or CNS metastases (p < 0.001). Medical history was associated with fewer inclusions (odds ratio [OR] = 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.56; 0.99]). Among older patients, being enrolled in a trial in the first-line setting was not associated with better overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.03; 95%CI 0.86-1.22) in the multivariable analysis., Discussion: In this large database, few older AMNSCLC patients were enrolled in a trial. Factors associated with enrolment were: good ECOG PS, absence of medical history, de novo AMNSCLC, and presentation with non-CNS metastases., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest All authors declare no potential conflict of interest relevant to the content of the manuscript., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Thymomas are rare intrathoracic malignancies that may be aggressive and difficult to treat. Knowledge and level of evidence for treatment strategies are mainly based on retrospective studies or expert opinion. Currently there is no strong evidence that postoperative radiotherapy after complete resection of localized thymoma is associated with survival benefit in patients. RADIORYTHMIC is a phase III, randomized trial aiming at comparing postoperative radiotherapy versus surveillance after complete resection of Masaoka-Koga stage IIb/III thymoma. Systematic central pathologic review will be performed before patient enrollment as per the RYTHMIC network pathway., Patients and Methods: Three hundred fourteen patients will be included; randomization 1:1 will attribute either postoperative radiotherapy (50-54 Gy to the mediastinum using intensity-modulated radiation therapy or proton beam therapy) or surveillance. Stratification criteria include histologic grading (thymoma type A, AB, B1 vs B2, B3), stage, and delivery of preoperative chemotherapy. Patient recruitment will be mainly made through the French RYTHMIC network of 15 expert centers participating in a nationwide multidisciplinary tumor board. Follow-up will last 7 years. The primary endpoint is recurrence-free survival. Secondary objectives include overall survival, assessment of acute and late toxicities, and analysis of prognostic and predictive biomarkers., Results: The first patient will be enrolled in January 2021, with results expected in 2028., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) can cause numerous and complex immune-related adverse events whose management need a multidisciplinary approach. Herein, we investigated 114 requests, mostly concerning patients suffering from lung cancer, that were submitted to the « ToxImmun » multidisciplinary meeting in Eastern Occitania between December the 17th 2018 and January the 20th 2020. The leading reasons for the request concerned the putative causal link between immunotherapy and immune-toxicity and its management, followed by possible retreatment after temporary withdrawn because of adverse event, and finally the possibility to initiate ICIs in patients with pre-existing autoimmunity. Colitis, hepatitis and myocarditis were the most frequent immune-related adverse events (IRAEs), both all grade and grade 3-4. Sicca syndrome (with or without Sjogren criteria) was also frequent (26% of cases) and seems to be associated with severe toxicity and multi-toxicity. The mean time to first IRAE was 3.8 months, a time shortened with the use of anti-PD-L1 agents or ICI combination. A majority of requests came from initial evaluation by the internist confirming the early and main role of this specialty in the management of immunotoxicity. Expansion of this regional multidisciplinary meeting, coordinated by internists and medical oncologists, could improve management of immune-related adverse events for the patients' benefits., (Copyright © 2021 Société Nationale Française de Médecine Interne (SNFMI). Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: BRAF mutations occurring in 1%-5% of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are therapeutic targets for these cancers but the impact of the exact mutation on clinical activity is unclear. The French National Cancer Institute (INCA) launched the AcSé vemurafenib trial to assess the efficacy and safety of vemurafenib in cancers with various BRAF mutations. We herein report the results of the NSCLC cohort., Patients and Methods: Tumour samples were screened for BRAF mutations in INCA-certified molecular genetic centres. Patients with BRAF-mutated tumours progressing after ≥1 line of treatment were proposed vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily. Between October 2014 and July 2018, 118 patients were enrolled in the NSCLC cohort. The primary outcome was the objective response rate (ORR) assessed every 8 weeks (RECIST v1.1). A sequential Bayesian approach was planned with an inefficacy bound of 10% for ORR. If no early stopping occurred, the treatment was of interest if the estimated ORR was ≥30% with a 90% probability. Secondary outcomes were tolerance, response duration, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS)., Results: Of the 118 patients enrolled, 101 presented with a BRAF V600 mutation and 17 with BRAF nonV600 mutations; the median follow-up was 23.9 months. In the BRAF nonV600 cohort, no objective response was observed and this cohort was stopped. In the BRAF V600 cohort, 43/96 patients had objective responses. The mean Bayesian estimated success rate was 44.9% [95% confidence intervals (CI) 35.2%-54.8%]. The ORR had a 99.9% probability of being ≥30%. Median response duration was 6.4 months, median PFS was 5.2 months (95% CI 3.8-6.8), and OS was 10 months (95% CI 6.8-15.7). The vemurafenib safety profile was consistent with previous publications., Conclusion: Routine biomarker screening of NSCLC should include BRAF V600 mutations. Vemurafenib monotherapy is effective for treating patients with BRAF V600 -mutated NSCLC but not those with BRAF nonV600 mutations., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02304809., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Thymic epithelial tumors (TETs) are rare malignancies that may be aggressive and difficult to treat. In the advanced setting, systemic treatments may be delivered as primary therapy before surgery or definitive radiotherapy, as exclusive treatment when no focal treatment is feasible, or in the setting of recurrences. Réseau tumeurs THYMIques et Cancer (RYTHMIC) is the nationwide network for TETs in France. The objective of the study was to describe the modalities and analyze the efficacy of systemic treatments for patients with advanced TETs included in the RYTHMIC prospective database hosted by the French Thoracic Cancer Intergroup., Methods: All consecutive patients for whom systemic treatment was discussed at the RYTHMIC multidisciplinary tumor board from 2012 to 2015 and who received at least one cycle of treatment were included. The main end points were objective response and progression-free survival (PFS)., Results: A total of 236 patients were included in this analysis. Of those 236 patients, 91 received primary chemotherapy, leading to response rates of 83% for thymomas and 75% for thymic carcinomas and a median PFS of 23.2 months. A strong predictor of longer PFS was histologic type of thymoma (p < 0.001). Exclusive chemotherapy was delivered to 54 patients. The response rates were 31% for thymomas and 37% for thymic carcinomas. The median PFS was 6.2 months, and it was correlated to response rate (p = 0.001). Systemic therapy for a first, second, third, and fourth recurrence was delivered to 114, 81, 51, and 27 patients, respectively. The response rates ranged between 15% and 39% for thymomas and 4% to 21% for thymic carcinomas. The median PFS times were 7.7, 6.2, 5.9, and 6.5 months, respectively., Conclusion: Patients with advanced thymic malignancies may receive multiple lines of systemic therapy, with an opportunity for clinically relevant PFS rates for which objective response may be a surrogate. Our real-life study provides landmark efficacy data that are needed when designing clinical trials to assess innovative agents., (Copyright © 2018 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Thymic epithelial tumors (TETs) are rare intrathoracic malignancies for which surgery represents the mainstay of the treatment. Current practice for postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) is highly variable, and there is a lack of prospective, high level evidence. Réseau Tumeurs Thymiques et Cancer (RYTHMIC) is the nationwide network for TETs in France. Established in 2012, it prospectively collects data on all TET patients, for whom management is discussed at a national multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB). We assessed whether PORT decisions at the MTB were in accordance with RYTHMIC guidelines and ultimately implemented in patients., Methods: All consecutive patients for whom PORT was discussed at the MTB from 2012 to 2015 were identified from the RYTHMIC prospective database, and a complete review of their medical records was performed., Results: A total of 274 patients, including 243 with thymoma (89%) and 31 with thymic carcinoma (11%), were analyzed. The decision of the MTB was in accordance with guidelines in 221 patients (92%) of the 241 with stage I or III TET. An MTB decision to deliver PORT was made for 117 patients (43%). PORT was ultimately initiated in 101 patients. The most frequent reason for not delivering PORT was excessive (>3 months) delay after surgery. Dose-volume constraints defined by the International Thymic Malignancy Interest Group were followed in all but four patients., Conclusion: Our data provide a unique insight into the decision-making process for PORT in TETs, highlighting the need for systematic discussion at an expert MTB, while stressing the value of current available guidelines., (Copyright © 2017 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Drug-induced adverse effects are one of the main avoidable causes of hospitalization in older people. Numerous lists of potentially inappropriate medications for older people have been published, as national and international guidelines for appropriate prescribing in numerous diseases and for different age categories. The present review describes the general rules for an appropriate prescribing in older people and summarizes, for the main conditions encountered in older people, medications that are too often under-prescribed, the precautions of use of the main drugs that induce adverse effects, and drugs for which the benefit to risk ratio is unfavourable in older people. All these data are assembled in educational tables designed to be printed in a practical pocket format and used in daily practice by prescribers, whether physicians, surgeons or pharmacists., (Copyright © 2015 Société nationale française de médecine interne (SNFMI). Published by Elsevier SAS. All rights reserved.)

Benefits of physical exercise on the physical and psychological health lead to specifics guidelines during pregnancy. For pregnant women, to take part in aerobics exercise (walking, biking) (i.e. 30 minutes, three times per week at 60-90% of the maximal heart rate) and strength training (i.e. one to two times per week) is recommended. Physical exercise programs during pregnancy have shown benefits for preventing and treating complications pregnancy (e.g. gestational diabetes mellitus, overweight). Benefits of exercise and risks associated with sedentary should be widely diffused among pregnant women and prenatal caregivers., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To compare the response rates and safety profiles of two investigational chemotherapies that were delivered concurrently with whole-brain radiotherapy in a population of patients with chemonaive non-small cell lung cancer., Methods: Eligible patients included those presenting with brain metastases belonging to the Recursive Partitioning Analysis of prognostic factors from the Radiation Therapy Oncology groups II or III, who were not able to undergo surgery or stereotactic radiotherapy. Other main eligibility criteria were age <75 years and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status = 0 to 2. The study design was as follows: all patients received whole-brain radiotherapy in three split courses of 18 gy/10 fractions. They were randomly (1:1) assigned to regimen A, consisting of a triplet cisplatin-vinorelbine-ifosfomide, or to regimen B, consisting of high-dose single-drug ifosfamide. In both groups, chemotherapy was delivered on a 4-week cycle, for three courses. Each course was delivered concurrently with radiotherapy. Brain and other tumor lesion assessments were performed in both groups at the end of the three courses (RECIST). Neurologic symptoms were evaluated quantitatively at each step of the treatment program. All analyses were carried out in an intention to treat basis, and statistical tests were two sided., Results: Seventy patients were randomly allocated into groups A (n = 37) and B (n = 33). With regards to the whole lesions, overall response rates did not significantly differ between the groups (group A: 45.9%; group B: 33.3%; chi(2); p = 0.28). When brain-target lesions were separately analyzed, respective response rates were 59.5% and 48.5%; (chi(2); p = 0.0.53). Febrile neutropenia was more frequently observed in the former group (n = 19, 54.29%) than in the latter (n = 12, 36.36%; p = 0.13), and a similar difference was also observed regarding documented infections. Red blood cell transfusions and readmission for antibiotic infusions significantly affected more patients in group A than in group B. The longitudinal evaluation of neurologic symptoms (by means of Generalized Estimating Equation) slightly improved during the treatment program, and there was no difference between the groups. Median overall survival did not significantly differ between the two groups (months [95% confidence interval], 8.5 [6.4-10.8] and 5.7 [4.6-11.9] in groups A B, respectively; p= 0.82). In the Cox model, a high neuron-specific enolase serum level was the only significant prognostic determinant., Conclusion: Both regimens were active and induced a high rate of response, particularly for brain-target lesions. Myelotoxicity jeopardizes the acceptability of both regimens. Despite such an aggressive approach, none of the regimens suggested a putative overall improvement of outcome in this poor prognosis presentation of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. The search for alternative therapies to chemotherapy, such as targeted therapy, is urgently warranted in this setting.

Introduction: High circulating serum vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) levels might reflect enhanced angiogenesis in patients suffering from non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study aimed at determining the prognostic significance of circulating VEGF as a prognostic factor in NSCLC., Methods: Four hundred fifty-one histologically or cytologically proven and previously untreated NSCLC patients have been studied. Median follow-up was 13 years and 9 months. Eleven clinical and biologic variables were recorded. The levels of circulating VEGF were measured in the serum by quantitative immunoassay. Patients have had received conventional treatment (without anti-VEGF therapy) according to the international guidelines. All statistical tests were two-sided., Results: Receiver operating characteristic curves (area under the ROC curve: 0.66 +/- 0.05) showed that circulating VEGF serum level did not demonstrate a high sensitivity-specificity relationship, and therefore, demonstrated a low ability to differentiate NSCLC from benign lung diseases. A 600 pg/mL level of circulating VEGF serum was considered as threshold with 40.8% of NSCLC patients presenting with a high level. The circulating VEGF distribution differed significantly according to disease stage, nodal status, and performance status (PS), with the highest levels observed in metastatic stage, positive mediastinal nodal status, and poor PS. In univariate survival analysis, patients with a high pretreatment circulating VEGF serum level proved to have a shorter overall survival when compared with patients presenting with a circulating VEGF serum level /=2, nodal status N2-3, metastatic disease, neuron-specific enolase >12.5 ng/mL, CYFRA 21-1 >3.6 ng/mL., Conclusion: The prognostic information given by a high circulating VEGF serum level is not an independent determinant of survival owing to a high relationship with main prognostic variables such as PS, stage of the disease, and nodal status. This finding does not preclude a putative prognostic impact of in situ detection of VEGF and VEGF receptors in tumor specimen.

Background: This multicenter, randomized, phase III study compared the efficacy, including progression-free survival (PFS), and safety of gemcitabine-docetaxel (GD) combination versus cisplatin-vinorelbine (CV) in the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Patients and Methods: Chemonaive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC were treated with GD (gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) days 1 and 8 plus docetaxel 85 mg/m(2) day 8, every 3 weeks for eight cycles) or CV (cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) day 1 plus vinorelbine 30 mg/m(2), days 1, 8, 15 and 22, every 4 weeks for six cycles)., Results: A total of 311 patients were enrolled (155 GD and 156 CV). Neither PFS nor overall survival differed significantly between the two arms (median PFS 4.2 and 4 months; median survival 11.1 and 9.6 months; 1-year survival 46% and 42%, for GD and CV, respectively). For the GD arm compared with the CV arm, the hazard ratio for PFS was 1.04 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83-1.32], and for overall survival, it was 0.90 (95% CI 0.70-1.16). Objective response rates did not differ significantly (31% for GD, 35.9% for CV). Myelosupression, emesis and frequency of febrile neutropenia were less pronounced on the GD arm, whereas fluid retention and pulmonary events were more pronounced. The CV arm experienced a higher number of serious adverse events and a lower compliance with the protocol. There was no quality of life (QoL) difference between arms. Median time to definite impairment of health-related QoL was 153 and 168 days in GD and CV arms, respectively., Conclusions: There was no advantage in PFS with GD compared with CV; however, the CV regimen had higher rate of toxic events, mainly myelosuppression. The herein, non-platinum-containing regimen could be considered as a rational alternative to the cisplatin-based doublet.

Cisplatin-based combinations are standard regimens in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Survival improvement has been achieved using this therapy. However, the high toxicity induced by cisplatin-based doublets urges the research of alternate treatments. Newest cytotoxic compounds yield a better efficacy/toxicity ratio. Platinum-free doublet regimens based on new drugs are expected to offer the patient an improved survival without decreasing his quality of life. Treatment-allocated time and period with high grade toxicity could be considered as wasted from the patient point of view. Qualy methods based on time without symptoms and toxicity (TWiST) allow the accurate evaluation of this end-point. This brief state-of-the-art deals with methodological statements highlighted by the first publications of randomized studies comparing gemcitabine--navelbine or gemcitabine--taxane combinations with either single-drug chemotherapy or standard chemotherapy based on cisplatin. The choice of end-points is discussed.

Objective: To determine the applicability and safety of an ifosfamide, cisplatin, and etoposide (VIP) regimen as a neoadjuvant chemotherapy to a concomitant thoracic radiotherapy and cisplatin continuous infusion in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Patients and Methods: Forty-four patients (stage IIIb in 43 and stage IIIa in 1) entered a study of VIP, followed by concomitant thoracic radiotherapy and cisplatin continuous infusion. Chemotherapy consisted of three courses of cisplatin 25 mg/m2, ifosfamide 1.5 g/m2 (with uroprotection), and etoposide 100 mg/m2 given on days 1 to 4 of a 21-day cycle with hematopoietic support using recombinant human methionyl granulocyte colony stimulating factor. Patients who achieved a response or a stabilization were planned to receive a split-course normofractionated thoracic radiotherapy (first course: 30 Gy/10; 4-week rest period; second course: 25 Gy/10). A continuous cisplatin infusion of 6 mg/m2 daily was administered using an autonomous chemotherapy delivery device. Total plasma platinum titration was performed daily during the two courses in five of the patients. Analyses were done on an intent-to-treat basis., Results: Thirty-nine of the 44 patients received the three-cycle chemotherapy program. Received dose intensity was 82%. Thirty-eight patients received the radiotherapy and, among them, 35 received the complete concomitant continuous cisplatin infusion. Objective (complete) response rates were 48% (7%) at the end of chemotherapy and increased up to 61% (16%) by the end of radiotherapy. At the end of the first radiotherapy cycle, the mean total plasma platinum concentration was twice as high as that of the residual postinduction chemotherapy concentration. During induction chemotherapy, myelosuppression was the limiting toxicity requiring hospital readmission in 23 patients. During radiotherapy, the main toxicity was acute esophagitis. A relatively high rate of pulmonary fibrosis was observed using the subjective objective management analytic--late effects of normal tissue score without life-threatening pulmonary function impairment. None of the patients died from toxic reactions. Probability of survival at 1, 2, and 3 years was 49%, 19%, and 5%, respectively. Primary cause of failure was a local relapse in 63% of the patients, brain metastases in 24%, and hematogeneous metastases to other sites in 13%., Conclusion: Neoadjuvant VIP followed by concomitant radiotherapy-chemotherapy is feasible, but the split-course radiotherapy did not prevent a high rate of local recurrences. The high rate of toxic reactions requiring hospital readmission limits further development of such an aggressive regimen in NSCLC.

The aim of this study was (i) to determine predictive factors of a complete response to chemotherapy in small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and predictive factors of an objective response in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and (ii) to determine whether prognostic factors are different with regard to treatment response and survival. Ninety-nine patients with SCLC and two hundred and two patients with NSCLC received chemotherapy. The following variables were recorded prior to treatment: tumor, node, metastasis status, performance status, body weight loss, blood leukocyte count, serum sodium, serum albumin, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), alkaline phosphatase, serum NSE, serum TPS, and serum CYFRA 21-1. Tumor response was analyzed at the 10th week. Analysis of survival were done using the landmark method. Hazard ratios of the significant prognostic variables of survival were calculated using the Cox's model. Odds ratios of the significant predicting factors of response were calculated by stepwise logistic regression. In SCLC, the significant determinants of poor survival were: lack of complete response (HR: 2.04), weight loss (HR: 1.76), high serum LDH level (HR: 1.64), and high serum TPS level (HR: 2.47). A high serum TPS level was the only factor among those studied able to predict lack of achievement of complete response (OR: 0.39). In NSCLC, significant determinants of poor survival were: no objective response (HR: 2.28), poor performance status (HR: 2.52), presence of metastases (HR: 1.51), and high serum CYFRA 21-1 level (HR: 1.84). On the other hand, a high serum TPS level (OR: 0.50), the presence of metastases (OR: 0.45), and a leukocyte blood count over 10,000/microl (OR: 0.43) were independent determinants for a patient not to achieve an objective response. We concluded that the predictive factors of complete response in SCLC remain to be defined. On the other hand, in NSCLC three variables contribute to the prediction of an objective response. Finally, determinants of survival differ from predictive factors of response.

Patients and Methods: Twenty patients with lung cancer and brain metastasis were prospectively included in this feasibility study (four small-cell and 16 non-small-cell lung cancers). There were two previously untreated patients and 18 pretreated patients for whom brain metastases constituted the first relapse after a treatment-free interval following chemotherapy for the primary lung cancer. Most of the patients had neurological symptoms and an ECOG performance index over 2. Treatment consisted of three courses of whole brain radiotherapy (18 Gy in 10 fractions) and ifosfamide: 3 g/m2 daily from day 1 through day 4, i.e., during the first four days of radiotherapy with uromitexan uroprotection and haematopoietic support (r-HuG-CSF)., Results: Seventeen patients completed the three-cycle programme. Sixteen patients had grade 4 neutropenia and six of them experienced a febrile episode. Other toxicities were mild to moderate and manageable. The received dose-intensity of ifosfamide was 90%. Response evaluation demonstrated stable disease for two patients, partial response for eight, complete response for six and progression for four. All responders benefited by a remission of symptoms and improvement of performance index. Median survival from start of protocol was 13 months., Conclusion: Brain radiotherapy plus high-dose ifosfamide is feasible in patients suffering from brain recurrences of lung cancer.

We analyzed the survival of 89 surgically treated patients presenting non-small-cell lung cancer in regard to the accumulation of p53 protein as detected by indirect immunoperoxidase reactivity of PAb1801 anti-human p53 protein. Although the well-known factors such as stage grouping, tumor status, and nodal status were found to be prognostic determinants, the p53 protein accumulation had no effect on either univariate analysis or multivariate analysis of survival.